Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Kane (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Kane

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, I don't think the depth of the coverage isn't substantial enough to warrant notability. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE states that a person is considered sufficiently notable if he or she has competed at the fuly professional level of his or her sport. Kane has obviously done this, as ECW was a major wrestling promotion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Athlete shouldn't apply as this more falls down the road of Entertainment rather than sports. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like Shane Hagadorn have been deleted numerous times since 2006 and he's been associated with ROH since 06 and thats considered along the same level of ECW and it still doesn't support notability, I don't see why someone with such a short stint in ECW is more notable than Hagadorn. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countless articles about people with similar (or smaller) claims to notability have also been kept numerous times since 2006. What's your point? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ROH and ECW on the same level? Do you really wanna run with that arguement? --Endless dan and his problem 13:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see an article on Kane here [1]; it's currently listed under Further reading, but looks usable as a reference to me. So there is at least some coverage of him, though I'd feel better about keeping this if there was another reliable source to go with this one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ridiculous nom. There are independent sources. Deleting his article won't help the project. --Endless dan and his problem 13:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable wrestler should be kept.--Curtis23's Us al ions 18:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.